I've always admired Chick-fil-A for not opening on Sunday - doing without one day of sales for what they believe in. However also, if anyone of any Faith chose to not open any day of the week for religious reasons, I would be equally in admiration.

Also, I don't usually eat in fast food restaurants; however, Chick-fil-A's original chicken sandwich is pretty good with a little salt & pepper. Their waffle potato fries are also good. I also like their lemonade.

This is a good debate We agree that the marketplace is not the best place for determining the best moral brands of consumption because price often trumps all other considerations for the consumer and business. Quality, durability and ability to fix and maintain products should be considered among environmental factors.
The last paragraph that states moral policies are best tested in our intellectual and democratic institutions sounds best, but then can we trust our public institutions to translate their honest democratic negotiations into policy?
One day we will look back on our social behaviour and say, wow were we ever wasteful and self-centered.

The notion that the best place to hash out our differences is in our democratic institutions is fine by me... As soon as Libertarians stop having any success with their notion that the economic marketplace should decide issues ranging from gay rights to worker rights to environmental preservation.

I hear arguments on one side from Libertarians saying "let people vote with their dollars" and on the other side (often from the same Libertarians but also from Republicans) saying 'we shouldn't punish companies for their social stances'.

Part of the public attitude that tips the scales away from legislative advancement for the little guy is the Libertarian claim that the marketplace can decide all these issues. It has a significant influence. If businesses don't like that game, then let them take a stand against it by being for legislative activism.

Without completely agreeing or disagreeing with this article, I'd ask what people are supposed to do when they have a false choice between two parties that perpetually fail to enact meaningful change and fail to actually do what they said they would do? If the people are striving to bring politics into other arenas, it is likely because the political arena itself is so corrupt (or at least deadlocked). However, the problem with voting with our purchasing power is that this is a very UNEQUAL way of enacting change - the more money you have the more votes you have, and vice versa.

People don't seem to grasp how the system works in the US, at least nowadays. You elect somebody not because they are going to do what you want and you can now relax and get back to your life; you elect somebody who will then comply when you spend the next term holding their feet to the fire, as it were, and pressuring them to live up to their promises, rather than electing the guy who is going to fight you every inch of the way when you try to pressure him to do what you want. Because as everybody observes, there are more than enough pressure groups who press whoever gets elected to do things that nobody else wants; the differences between the parties are on which controversial issues they will drag their feet versus allowing themselves to be shoved forward by the public.

W.W.: "...instruments for the enactment of progressive social change"
.
Reifowitz from the Hoof-Poof Post: "we prefer franchise operators who share our commitment to progressive values."
.
Someone obviously had told them what exactly is and what isn't progressive. What's funny, is that they believed it, and continue to live with this delusion.

I'll accept your assessment of the CFA cuisine's qualities - not only have I never tried their chow, but haven't ever heard about them before this laughable "controversy" was blown out of any proportion. Will be visiting the US around this Christmas, so I'm curious, but hear they don't operate in New England... or won't be allowed to?

I wouldn't eat it myself, but I can understand people who do much easier than I can understand people who espouse the now familiar slate of rightwing shibboleths, such as "we must stop the gay agenda", "we need to take back our country", "this is the most socialist/unamerican/tyrannical/totalitarian administration the US has ever seen", and of course, last but not least, "AGW is a hoax". Now that kind of sh*t I don't understand how anyone can eat.

From Iowa City to Houston, indeed. In the era of social-networking, it's not only acceptable, but laudable, to hold corporations (people, according to the Supreme Court)responsible for their explicit moral positions. And, fortunately, it's becoming unacceptable to defend bigotry, for any reason. Too bad that wasn't the case in Germany prior to the most monstrous moral failure in human history.

OK, a cheap shot. On a more personal note, too bad those polite people who hold their tongues as gays are denigrated in the name of religion don't acknowledge their moral complicity in the resulting pain and anger.

Many commentators on this thread as well as the author of the article missed the point of gay anger with Chick-Fil-A. It is not about the CEO's bigoted little speech. That was merely the spark. The real issue is the 3 to 5 miillon dollars the company has donated to virulently anti-gay organizations listed on the Southern Poverty Law Center's compendium of hate groups. Spending money at CFA is putting money in the pockets of those hate groups. This goes way, way beyond chicken sandwiches and CEO's moralizations. The author of this article trivializes what is in reality a matter of serious conflict.

Very false spark I'd say.
.
Firstly, Mr Cathy didn't volunteer his statement - he was asked a question by a journalist, and honestly answered it. With no moralizing, and not uttering a word about homosexuals and their quest for marriage: he had just said that he agrees with the Bible. Why not? What's wrong with it?
.
Secondly, people are entitled to their views - positive or negative - on the issue, and so are free to donate to groups of their choice. The fact that some activists compile proscription lists (compendiums, huh?) speaks volumes about them, not about those they hate.

You've failed to address the point being made by Tobias. People are not nearly as concerned about Cathy's personal views as they are about where the money from his company ends up. The organizations he donates to actively fight against anti-discrimination and other equality laws, use dangerous techniques such as "reparative therapy," and intentionally spread vicious misinformation about homosexuality that directly leads to hate activity. These organizations don't need "activists compil(ing) proscription lists," their actions and words speak loud and clear adressing exactly what they are about. Do you even know who these orgs are or what they do, or are you making an uninformed comment?

I couldn't care less if Cathy is a Bible-thumping troglodyte and he is certainly free to give his money to other Bible-thumping troglodytes - but not MY money! Hence I do not patronize his business, thus exercising the freedom that is mine as well as his. Further, I encourage others to avoid his business - also an exercise of personal freedom. Yes, Cathy was asked a question and gave his honest answer. That's all well and good but if one is going to speak out, one must accept the consequential reactions. If one's mother, for example, wears a new hat that you hate and you say so, you may get cold beans the next time you dine with her. That's a consequence of speaking one's mind. "Words like arrows, once shot into the air, cannot be recalled" and they tend to strike a mark. Cathy's words struck a mark with a community that is still fighting oppression world-wide and that community reacted - not saying Cathy must be gagged but saying "OK, if that's your opinion and if that's where you put your money, we will have no part of you, give you no profit and encourage others to likewise avoid you. Speak on if you will. Shout your message of discrimination from the housetops. You are quite free to do so. Just remember we are free to criticize you for it and to do our best to reduce the money you have available to donate to our enemies. That's the free market at work.

The real stink is over the fact that Chick-Fil-a spends $2 million a year to exterminate homosexuals. Unfortunately its the prevalence of attitudes like yours that make it unpopular for the media to report the entire story accurately.

You really haven't a clue what you are talking about. If you think all gays in "The West" live lives like one sees on TV sit-coms you are very much mistaken. My personal experience includes having been on the board of a charity in a major US city for homeless LGBT youth. We dealt with HUNDREDS of kids who had been thrown away by religious parents - ordered out of the house at the age of 14 - 15 - 16, put on the streets to survive as best they could - or not. Some were escaping abuse, intense bullying - you name it.I'd call that oppression. The New York Board of Social Services estimates there are between 3 and 8 THOUSAND such kids in New York alone. Then, in a larger sense - in how many states do gays have full civil rights? Yes, they don't jail us or put us in mental hospitals for being gay anymore - thank you very much for such courtesy! But in most states we are a long way yet from being equal. Then, in a larger sense yet, many gays in the more advantaged West are deeply involved is assisting our brothers and sisters in Africa and in Muslim states fight the intense homophobia they confront every day. I personally know people who provide shelter for LGBT refugees and who actively support or run "underground railroads" to help gays escape from such countries. "Tasteless" you call it? I'm floored by your superficial and ignorant comment about issues you are clearly, totally uninformed on.

My Google search research shows that David Badash is not an objective source of information regarding gay rights issues.

However, regardless of this, I have to admit that there is a lot of hatred on the Christian side of the gay rights issue – hatred is not what Christianity is about. All Christians do not hate homosexuals, however, don’t expect them to accept homosexual acts as right and good.

However also, all gay rights advocates are not necessarily innocent of deep hatred towards Christians. Your use of the term “Bible-thumping troglodyte” is a mild form of hatred towards Christians. I personally do not use any derogatory terms to describe anyone of the gay community.

My experience in debating LGBT advocates on Economist blog post comments section has been illuminating. My position on the issue of gay marriage was originally only drawn from the Catholic Church’s position on the issue… http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_...
After debating LGBT advocates, I find them all to engage in specious arguments (deception) to support their position. It has been insinuated by some who I have debated that I should not be allowed the right to vote and/or the right of free speech. I have been accused of not having an open mind simply because I do not support their position. After all of this, now I am against gay marriage because of my experience in the debates I’ve had as well.

Hatred is not exclusive to either side of the issue. And, hatred does not help either side of the issue as well.

Badash was not the only source I gave you. I also mentioned Forbes and ABC news and pointed out that google will produce a list of others. Personally, I couldn't care less what Christians accept or do not accept. What I do care about is attempts to impose the notions of a particular religion on my civil rights - as in denying me the right to a civil, legally recognized marriage to the person of my choice with all the rights thereto appertaining. Straight debaters on this issue can afford to take an Olympian position - detached and mannered. Their rights are fully in place and not affected. Those of us who have spent a lifetime struggling up from a starting point (The Stonewall Rebellion) where we had less of a social/legal position than cockroaches and who are still today in second class status at best, might be forgiven for being a bit more, shall we say, touchy about these issues than someone such as, say, yourself - for whom I presume they are of purely academic interest. I must ask what right have you to be "against gay marriage?" How does my wish to marry my partner have the slightest affect on your life? Merely to make that statement is as presumptuous on your part as it would be on mine to say I am "against you being a Christian." I present no "specious" or deceptive argument when I say, simply, that you and your co-religionists should mind your own business, practice your beliefs yourselves and leave us to practice ours with the same, full civil rights you enjoy. It is as simple as that.

It would appear that very few have read the comments in context. Most of those that I know that went in support of Cathy and Chick-Fil-A were not there for anything close to the moral issues- it was because a business owner's first amendment right to answer a question about what they believe was blown out of proportion in a public arena and used against them. That is not ok NO MATTER the topic!! Mr Cathy answered a question. Period. Some will agree, some will disagree. All are free to support or not based on THEIR beliefs. But to have a mayor publicly hint that because an individual does not hold the same beliefs, his ability to do business in his city may be hampered.... that is more truly intolerant, I'd say, than the business man who holds and lives out his beliefs but tolerates, hires and serves those who do not hold those same beliefs.

In technical terms CSR does contemplate proactive stakeholder engagement. And within this dimension of CSR, promoting and advancing diversity policies, especially for employees and customers, is of the essence.
It seems disingenuous to compare "buying a little social justice with your coffee and buying a little Christian traditionalism with your chicken." One alludes to an inclusive initiative while the other (by discriminating against same-sex marriage) promotes exclusion. Policies that promote exclusion should not be considered CSR.

You really are not paying much attention to the news, are you? Same sex marriage is legally recognized in quite a few U.S. states, sub or non-state jurisdictions (such was Washington D.C.) and foreign countries. Civil union is recognized in even more. Regardless of that, it is certainly possible to discriminate against a concept and those who are attempting to make that concept a reality. Your comment is facile.

Allegedly, a US legislature passed a law to put pi - the ratio between the circumference of a circle and its diameter - equal to exactly 3. This was to make calculation easier. Or compare the college regulation: "No dogs are allowed in the college grounds (but the Dean's dog is a cat)".

Amusing but inapplicable.I take your comment to mean that just because a concept exists in law does not mean it exists in reality. While that is surely true of the Dean's dog being a cat, Marriage is a state of being wholly determined by its definition in law - a civil contract. Unlike a mathematical postulation such as pi, which can in no way be altered by legislation or a matter of specific genetics ( a law may cause us to CALL a dog a cat but it cannot actually make a dog be a cat) marriage is precisely what the law says it is at any given place and time.

Thank you for finding this amusing, TobiasG, which I particularly appreciate given that I think we fundamentally disagree. I reject your essential premise - that marriage is a state of being wholly determined by its definition in law. I fully admit that a sovereign state has full power to decide the local attributes, privileges and legal consequences of what is - locally - legally to be considered 'marriage'. But that's not the end of the matter, if what the state decides makes little sense. The dean's cat is (I say) a persuasive analogy. The college has complete power to decide - for the purposes of its regulations - that the dean's dog is to be considered a cat. But this can lead to confusion in a broader context. The college students might misunderstand, and think that they were being told that the dean's dog actually was a cat for all purposes. This would not help them in their exams, or in understanding the world as a whole.

Legislation of any country contains a lot of junk - people, including legislators, aren't perfect. They're gullible, make mistakes and sometimes even do wrongs knowingly.
.
Now and then this requires a clean-up. That's what expects legal recognition of same sex marriage. It's junk because it legally recognizes a oxymoronic... or just moronic concept.
.
Legal recognition of something absurd cannot make this absurdity real.
.
Two people of same sex, even when they went through a mockery of wedding, are not in marriage - they're in make-believe parody of marriage.

Wow! I see we are dealing with an intellectual cave dweller here. Marriage is a civil contract conferring numerous practical benefits including but not limited to tax and insurance advantages. There is no valid reason why same sex couples should not enjoy those benefits. When those benefits are conferred as part of work compensation, it becomes an equal pay for equal work issue. When those couples are raising children there are numerous advantages to legal marriage. The fact is that whether you like it or not, we gays are getting married and the only morons around are those so narrow and bigoted that they refuse to accept the dawning reality of a new paradigm. The make-believe going on is on your part - trying to believe this is not real and not the wave of the future. Face it - no one, especially young people, cares what old troglodytes think about gays and marriage anymore. You are the unlamented past. Hie thee to a museum.

As a college professor myself (history) I have more faith in the ability of the average student to sort out the essential differences between a dog and a cat than you seem to have. As for marriage,yes, the legal definition is "the end of the matter." The only considerations that go beyond that are religious ones and those are to be left to the individual denomination - some being pro and some being con. We are concerned here only with the operative legal aspects - those that confer numerous distinct and practical advantages.These advantages are properly the subject of regulation by law. As an especially poignant example - most hospitals only allow access by immediate family to seriously ill patients. I could give many examples of LGBT partners, together for many, many years, who were not allowed access to a partner on the death bed because "they were not married." In some cases an estranged relative whom they had no contact with for many years had to be contacted to make care decisions - sometimes in accord with religious beliefs the patient him or her self had long rejected or had no interest in. I have personally seen cases like this and they are heart breaking - and no, a contract or proxy for health care often does NOT solve the problem. That is but one example. Then there are work related issues. If a straight fellow worker is getting health benefits for a spouse but a gay worker can not get them for his or her partner, then we have an "equal pay for equal work issue." These kind of issues go on and on and are solved by legal same sex marriage. It, in fact, makes perfect sense.

Yes. It has to do with the perception of the terms by others. We have civil union in New Jersey, where I live. A blue ribbon commission appointed by the previous governor conducted a year-long study of the results and concluded CU could not serve the same purposes as marriage. For one example - many, perhaps most insurance companies do not recognize it. In case after case an employee with benefits that included spousal health care was denied coverage for a CU partner because "you aren't really married." The same excuse has kept CU partners from the bedside of their loved one in hospitals. We have many documented cases of that. Young children being raised by same sex couples are confused as to why their parents aren't "married." I could go on at length but the bottom line is that separate is not and can never be equal. There is a second class status inherent in civil union that we, as full, tax paying citizens reject.Marriage is a civil union anyway, as a contract under law. the religious aspect is merely icing on the cake for those who want to eat that particular cake. Since straight couples get to call their union a marriage even if conducted only by a judge - no church involved - we in the gay community should clearly have the same right.

Thanks for this, and for eloquently and helpfully making the case for practical benefits from the proposed change. However, I have to go back to what I said before. I can't agree with you that marriage is a state of being wholly determined by its definition in law. Marriage has been for millennia an arrangement between a man and a woman (or at least one of each). This has been true over a wide range of cultures (or am I wrong about that? - I'm not an anthropologist). The idea that it could apply between two people of the same sex is (surely) extremely new? Can you refute that (maybe you can)? I'd be interested in the earliest record of a serious proposal to redefine marriage in this way. Meanwhile, to me (as to many others) it doesn't make sense. Sorry, but there it is.

As a matter of fact, being a history professor, I can indeed comment on the questions you raise. We begin with the work of the late Professor James Boswell, Chair of the history Dept. at Brown University. He published several books on same sex unions in the classical and early Christian eras. Brown's work has been criticized as perhaps being somewhat "a priori" in other words, selective in his research. None the less he clearly shows the early Christian Church did indeed have same-sex marriage rituals.The famous ancient icon of St. Sergius and St. Bacchus from St. Catherine's Monastery in the Sinai appears to show a same sex union being blessed by Christ.Roman social customs are relatively well known, and same-sex unions existed as high in society as among Roman emperors. Roman statesman Cicero also documented legal rights of an individual within a same-sex marriage. Female same-sex unions seemed to have been less common, but only because women enjoyed less freedom in their economic and social endeavors. Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, China and Japan all provide examples of same sex unions. Same sex marriage is very far indeed form being a new idea.

Thanks. I asked the right person, didn't I? That is truly interesting and (as you will imagine) surprising to me - particularly the early Christian same-sex marriage rituals. I shall have to do some research of my own (further reading, I mean, I'm not a professional) - though I fear that this research similarly may be somewhat 'a priori'.

You argue as though there is some magical line of separation that keeps economic actions from having political consequences and vice-versa. There is no such line; the realms spill into each other naturally as they act on overlapping bits of the world.

I knowingly and happily spend my money with organization run according to values and beliefs different from mine. I do this daily; I would have to, as the number of organizations run according to principles with which I agree *exactly* is probably near zero. But even without necessity, I would do so. I'm perfectly happy with such diversity, even knowing that some of these vendors might not be equally tolerant of me. In practice, my pro-diversity spending extended to Chik-fil-A when I knew of them as a company run according some version of "traditional" Christian values.

My choice to stop spending any money with Chik-fil-A came some years ago, with my discovery of their active, material support for specific groups. My motivation was not any sense of moral superiority, real or false. My choice followed quite naturally and consistently from my own values, which include support for equal protection under the law for all persons. Based on my own values, I do not knowingly fund hate groups or groups actively seeking to undermine civil liberties. There is nothing artificial about this. There would be something weirdly artificial about drawing a line around some category of interactions (say, economic), as though they were sacred, and exempting them from the values and decision factors I apply everywhere else.

I live in Las Vegas and I am gay but I would have gone to Chick-fil-A to support it if there was one franchise in my town. I found unsettling and insulting the actions of the politicians who threatened with withholding permits because the owner of the company, in an interview, opined about marriage. It is not only about the First Amendment it is also about the fact that elected officials find easy to come in front of the public and comment on the actions of a private citizen that has not done anything illegal. Even more galling is the fact that mayors think that they are the embodiments of morals and opinion in their cities. Someone should tell them that they are but administrators not opinion makers, law givers and punishers of citizens who do not fit the mold set by the mayors ideological leanings. In New York, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn decided that her sexual orientation allows her to throw her public weight around and ask a private university, NYU, to evict the Chick-fil-A operating on campus. It is disconcerting when people who should be the sentinels of constitutional freedoms become little thought controllers. This was a public spat and we were able to see in the light of the day how some people in power would use their heft. I wonder how many times they use the same tactics in the shadow of their office pushing for their favorite business based on ideology or belief. Would Christine Quinn, once elected mayor of New York, she seems to be a shoe in, chase out of the city business whose owners do not believe, privately, in gay marriage even if they do not discriminate in their business interactions? Would there be a litmus test for business applying for permit? We must ask because after the Chick-fil-A controversy, when the curtain has been open to allow us to see the arrogance and lack of respect for the rights of others our politicians have shown, they would go back to act in the backrooms of their office and we will be the one to suffer from their actions.

It's hardly more "galling" than Chick-Fil-A contributing to organizations who purposefully torture homosexuals which directly results in a high rate of homosexual suicide (4-6 per day).

Oh you didn't bother to research that aspect? How convenient. I understand your dismay because Chick-Fil-A spends millions a year to make sure you remain ignorant on this subject. Funny yet?

This is not about "freedom of speech", that is simply the story the media found palatable. I guess it was difficult to tell the general public that they themselves are largely responsible for driving their own homosexual children to suicide.

It is a proven fact that Chick-Fil-A contributes to organizations who purposefully torture homosexuals which result in a high rate of homosexual suicide (4-6 per day). How could their hiring practices be even remotely relevant or sincere?

Its a little like saying "at least the rat gets free cheese just before the trap removes its head."

I personally know gays who work there and they love it. They've even taken advantage of CFA's college tuition assistance and are grateful for it. They tell me that CFA has a policy against discrimination of any type and employees have been reprimanded for disparaging remarks. You don't know what you're talking about!

Gee no cry from the left when McDonald's, Wendy's, Coke and Budweiser would only allow blacks to buy new franchises with 100% corporate financing. Something they have never done for whites.
The days of competation, and entrepreneurial spirit has been tossed aside for a "specific colored " society

If it is, maybe it is a reflection of your country's recent experience with making home loans to those who could not pay them back? I read a stat (I can find if you wish) that indicated a significant percentage of defaults were attributable to your Black and other minority communities.

Might businesses--who are using their own monies rather than taxes--feel a bit more accountable to shareholders than your politicians do to your taxpayers? And might those minority segments of your society, that suffer more as credit risks, be asked to put up more collateral?

I wonder: do we term this financial credit system ipso facto Racist? Were your minorities viewed as a “credit score” and treated accordingly or, as a “Black” person, and then treated accordingly? The first gives some evidence of financial acumen (corner cases aside, it’s used because it works); the latter tells a financial institution nothing. Were Mssrs Barney Frank and Chris Dodd simply leveling the playing field? They certainly leveled your housing market…

They were treated as a Black quota person, just like Obama's admission to college. Most of this extortion started with Jesse Jackson threatening boycotts and marches.
Of course the fact that his son was given Budweiser Franchise to appease Jesse and end the threats.
As quota recipients companies even bankroll their losses in Ford Motor co case it lasted 20 years for some dealers who lost money

I think you are mistaking this for a political or religious issue, when really it's a civil rights issue. Somebody being Christian really does not preclude them being gay any more than it precludes them being heterosexual. I would no more eat one of their sandwiches than I would have eaten at Denny's all those years ago when their racial management issues were exposed.

The problem is that you cannot work to remove human rights from a group of people. This was decided back in the 1960's. If you talked to any of the Christian right-wing conservatives of the 50's & 60's you would have heard the exact same thing said about desegregationists. "It is my opinion that black people are inferior, you can't stop me from expressing my views".

If a company came out and announced that their corporate policy was that there should exist a ban against blacks marrying (as existed in the 19th century) even the Tea-Party Republicans would distance themselves from the statements. A very small group of individuals would turn out to support it (you know who I mean) and the guy would be fired immediately by ownership.

Even the conservative-minded voices on here would be shocked and demanding consequences.

But because the group being targeted are the "gays" you feel it is safer to throw bricks at them.

Freedom of Expression (or opinion as your termed it) does have limitations.

"Human Rights"? Sir, I understand your argument and generally agree regarding "Human Rights." However, I believe your constitution provides protections for minorities--this is what the gay community seeks, yes? I think these rights are defined, are they not?

The issue is whether your constitution protects minorities and accords them greater rights than just "human rights." And herein is the rub: is "gay" a life style or a protected minority with a status greater than "Human Rights"?

In an effort to determine this, we might ask some questions:
Does the gay community have a language? A cultural heritage? Do they have a country? A particular race or color (very big in in the West)? Do they even have gay recipes?

Unfortunately for gays, they do not seem to fit into any civil rights categories I can perceive. They are humans, like all the rest of us. "Protected status" under civil rights laws? I think not, unless we expand the category—which then can include just about any other life style choice. The effect of this? “When everyone is “special” NO one is special” and such status is lost.

Most gay discussions, taken to their logical conclusion usually end up in the bedroom. Why? Because that is the defining difference between them and heterosexuals. Is this "bad"? I don't think so. But it is not a "protected" status; it is simply a life-style choice.

Gays perceive this and have sought to prove genetic differences. If there are, so be it...yet, I still have my doubts, as does much of science. Is this homophobic? In the West and especially in America, I think it’s difficult to have honest discussion about race or sex due to the knee-jerk reactions in the extremes in both camps. If one has doubts he must quash them or be termed racist, homophobe, etc. When the data changes, my mind will change.

Esteban Cafein reply to Alex Kilgour wrote ..."Human Rights"? Sir, I understand your argument and generally agree regarding "Human Rights." However, I believe your constitution provides protections for minorities--this is what the gay community seeks, yes? I think these rights are defined, are they not?...

Mr. / Ms. EstebanCafe,

I wish by now someone with more knowledge than I answered already. I found this to be such a common misconception I feel at least some explanation should be made. I hope someone with more knowledge than I will reply. Until such time, let me try to explain...

Actually, The Constitution does not separate minority v majority. In The Constitution, we Americans, each and every one of us, are one of the people in the “We the People”. The Bill of Rights (The ten original amendments) states the rights each and every one of us has, minority or otherwise. In the main text, the often quoted line is our freedom to have "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

Most the Constitution and the ten amendments are in what the government cannot do to us. None is in the form of protecting us from each other. Much is left to the laws to define the acceptable behaviors.

With “don’t ask don’t tell” gone, sexual preference is not explicitly mentioned in any federal law that I am aware of. The only existing law (I know of) referencing this subject is the marriage protection act making the word “marriage” in federal governance (or law) to mean between a man and a woman.

The closest “minority protection” law is the employment protection act in 1964 where job discrimination is protected against Race, Color, Religion, Gender, and National Origin. Age was added in 1967.

In our rejection of separating majority and minority, even The Equal Rights Amendment (in the 1970/1980’s) to ensured equal protection for woman failed. Some no-votes were not anti woman but from supporters of woman. They voted no because woman is not excluded from “We The People” and thus already protected as one of the people in “We The People”. So, we in general try to include all Americans as one of the "We The People". One can argue if it works well, but that appears to me to be the approach.

Protection of minority is done via “when you deprived me of those rights” enumerated in these ten original and subsequent amendments to the constitution. So, for example, it does not say “a majority-person cannot kill a minority-person”. However, if a majority person did kill any one (minority or not), he deprived the victim the rights to “life” and “the pursuit of happiness”.

That is one of the reasons in my view why “gay marriage” often turn into a slippery slope argument. (Let me be clear, I am not arguing pros or cons, so don’t argue with me on that. I am merely stating that argument is a common argument I hear.) The slippery slope argument is: If it is in “pursuit of Happiness”, where does it stop? Does it allow a mother to marry his son if that is how she pursuit her happiness? So forth, so forth.

"Most gay discussions, taken to their logical conclusion usually end up in the bedroom. Why? Because that is the defining difference between them and heterosexuals. Is this "bad"? I don't think so. But it is not a "protected" status; it is simply a life-style choice."

Sure, many gay people have made the choice to portray themselves as straight people. That is a life-style choice. Choosing differently would have certain consequences that they may understandably wish to avoid.

So, being openly gay is technically a "life-style choice." Being gay isn't. It is not "simply" a life-style choice.

"In The Constitution... the often quoted line is our freedom to have "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"."
That's the Declaration of Independence, actually. The word "happiness" doesn't appear in the Constitution.

Human rights are innate and common to all. They don't attach by virtue of belonging to a sub group of society but instead to its superset, humanity.

The issue is not that they should attach to racial or economic groupings but instead that they shouldn't be denied or excluded on those grounds.

Thats the false dichotomy. You don't have to belong to one to qualify, therefore you can't be excluded because you belong to one or conversely don't fit neatly into one.

I say neatly because in fact Gays like most people belong to a cross spectrum of groups, so it can't be employed either way as proper determinant.

Gays don't need to prove they belong to a sub group, cultural or otherwise or anything more beyond than that they are human to enjoy the freedoms and liberties common to all.

Why should Christian values be of any greater import than any other group's in a pluralistic society?

Why should greater weight be given to their views on homosexuality and be allowed to determine who qualifies to equal enjoyment of individual human rights?

What makes them such a special exception to the rule the rest of us have to follow?

Moreover, I think you answer the question you ask below within the same paragraph.

"Unfortunately for gays, they do not seem to fit into any civil rights categories I can perceive. They are humans, like all the rest of us. "Protected status" under civil rights laws? I think not, unless we expand the category—which then can include just about any other life style choice. The effect of this? “When everyone is “special” NO one is special” and such status is lost."

(Replace Gays in the above with Christians and reread it).

You are right, the issue is with your perception.

The catergory they fit into you provide yourself. "They are human" and as such come under the protected status that you and I share.

"When everyone is special then no one is special" is exactly what they are after.

It is the pressure groups that seek to exclude them from equal access and privilege to everyday rituals and ceremonies that single them out as special and apart, just to their detriment.

Prejudice is not made anything the less simply because its time honoured or has cultural or religously inspired observance.

Acting on prejudice is not freedom of expression nor a reinforcement of individual rights, because it violates the very first and most fundamental principle of the theory of individual human rights. That one individuals rights end where anothers begin.

If you can only pursue your self expression by denying me likewise, then you have reverted from the quid pro quo upon which they are based to a more brutal Hobbesian contest of the imposition of the will.

Sir, that is the point: we're all human--any special considerations Americans make such as hate crimes against one group should have no legal standing. Human is human. Yet your own Bill of Rights and Constitution provide protected practices.

Your verbal gymnastics aside, I think you're restating my very premise. There should be no secondary protections for humans after humanity itself; however, clearly your constitution provides for protected practices. And no one is questioning gay's protection under the law as humans; only as gays. I think your states' votes against it have provided sufficient proof that it is seen as a life style choice akin to surfing or cruising.

Is not the practice of religion a protected right under your constitution or Bill of Rights? Gay is not--thus my questioning of what constitutes a protected practice. So replacing gay with Christian achieves exactly what, sir? The former is protected; the latter is not. I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that amendment granting gays equal protection under the law. I think you are confused in your words, certainly in your logic.

Then, on what basis do gays have to "equal access"? They certainly are not denied it at the human level. If someone is murdered no one asks if the person is gay, straight or Christian, apart from efforts to solve the crime. If a plane goes down none of the rescuers asks if the passengers are black, white, or gay—but they’re all human-and accorded the same diligence.

Yet your own constitution provides protections for valued practices such as speech, marriage, religion--even gun ownership, if you can believe that. I understand that Americans call these "rights." Gay is not a valued nor protected “practice.”

I think the access craved is this protected status, under which said life-style choice does not qualify--that is: marriage. That seems clear.

This can be changed legislatively, yes? Yet your culture rejects it in state after state. Forcing acceptance through the courts seems to beg a very broad reading of fairly narrow list of rights, or so it seems to me. There seem to be penumbral arguments in which such rights can be established; this seems the most likely course to obtain them in the face of overwhelming cultural rejection.

The "every day rituals & ceremonies" gays seek access to are 1:1 / man:woman, based on old moral codes; their participation would radically change it. Personally, it matters not to me, but can you see that straight people would perceive a diminution of marriage by opening it to such?

As to the discussion ending in the bedroom? Where else can we take it? I'm open to hearing about gays' historically and culturally enriching underpinnings, language and contributions that establish and add to improving societies over time, etc., etc. That is, does being gay add anything to the human experience?

And you should not want it to go anywhere else but the bedroom as that is the ONLY differentiator between being gay and straight, yes? And if so, how little is that? Therein lies your argument: "gay sex vs. straight sex: so what?"

Based on your state's rejection of it, it seems a significant enough aberration to their voters. Gays should boil it down to the sexual difference and go with that.

Esteban Cafe - I challenge your honesty on this matter. You claim you will change your mind when the data changes. However, I have presented a rock solid case describing the science that shows that homosexuals are persecuted indeed tortured to death en mass - daily.

You asked for citations and I provided them. I didn't just provide citations, I provided citations from the top experts in each appropriate field.

If the leading experts cannot provide the "data" you are looking for and persecution unto death does not rate constitutional "Protected status", then your language is dishonest at best.

Certainly you are being dishonest when you say much of the science agrees with you. It does not agree with you at all - in any way. Which may be the real reason you are having a hard time having an honest discussion on this matter. I return your challenge to me - citations please. Its not just your credibility that is on the line - its also your claim to humanity.

"Gay" is a protected right, value, and practice under the Constitution of the United States. In fact "gay" is protected twice, not just once. Don't you think you should read he Constitution of the United States before you feign at knowing its contents? Its not that long of a document. Its also not that difficult to understand.

Being gay definitely has a genetic component. I think they are looking at some sort of hormonal interplay in vitro. Gay men, on average, have one of the fingers longer and, on average, have longer penises. I don't remember correctly, I think these are all linked together by testosterone? Not sure, can't recall. I know that women find the scent of gay mens sweat off putting whereas straight male sweat will make dem pussys wet fo sure (given they have mismatched immune systems). Supposedly gay male sweat is supposed to smell a little like rubber to straight women.
I say just completely abandon marriage all together legally. It is too tied to religion. Just give out medals with a karate guy on top and call it a day.

Agreed "Common decency" should not apply, but this case has nothing to do with "freedom of opinion".

Chick-Fil-A spends $2million a year to fund the mass torture of homosexuals (driving 4-6 to suicide every year) and to deny homosexuals their rights. So no I don't think "Common decency" should enter into it.

You did nothing of what you've listed as being presented by you. And how could you?
.
"Science that shows that homosexuals are persecuted" is unadulterated crap, and cannot be anything else.
.
As to them gays being "tortured to death en mass - daily", it's a rock solid North Korean type of propaganda, not science.
.
Quite an achievement for a HARRY REID SCHOOL'S OF OUTRAGEOUS ACCUSATIONS WITH NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE graduate...

So... you DO support a company that donates millions of dollars to organizations on the Southern Poverty Law Center's list of hate groups? So...being against hate groups is being a "gaystapo?" Wow! Nice logic - not.

"Commie???" How quaint! Evidently you live in a time warp. In case you missed it, the Soviet Union collapsed rather a while ago.That basically leaves only China flying the red flag and the socio/political structure there has very little about it that Marx or Lenin would recognize."Commies" are history. We won. Go have a beer and celebrate.
As for the Southern Poverty Law Center, its credentials and the respect in which it is held require no endorsement from the likes of you. You are a fool. Go away.

Sorry if you missed the point. I was not suggesting that there is a single gene that determines sexuality. I don't know of anyone suggesting that. I'm merely suggesting that sexual preference is not simply a life-style choice.

"That is, does being gay add anything to the human experience?" Probably about as being straight does.

It seems to me that a lot of people, especially in the media and in some notable city halls, did not bother to read what Mr. Cathy actually said. He only alluded to same-sex marriage and his likely opposition to it by saying that he supports the traditional, biblical definition of marriage. His corporation's action demonstrate that they do not discriminate against homosexuals. I may or may not spend my money according to a corporation's supposed values. For example, I believe that man-made global warming is a myth and in any case is overshadowed by Mother Nature, thus, you won't see me buy a Chevy Volt. At the same time, I protested the condemnation and threats to Mr. Cathy by voting with my wallet and bought at Chick-Fil-A last Wednesday for only the 2nd time in my life. Whether or not I agree with him, I thoroughly disagree with his fascist opposition.

"I believe that man-made global warming is a myth and in any case is overshadowed by Mother Nature, thus, you won't see me buy a Chevy Volt. At the same time, I protested the condemnation and threats to Mr. Cathy by voting with my wallet and bought at Chick-Fil-A last Wednesday for only the 2nd time in my life."

It's not clear to me why those who dislike the idea of gay marriage are also world-class amateur scientists, able to pick apart the errors of the mainstream climate scientists at the leading universities. But it seems to be so to a remarkable degree. Particularly in the rural states. There's something about the open space that encourages great scientific minds, I suppose.

Sir, this would be true if the SLPC didn't have its own axe to grind. What percentage of your population agrees with their definition of "hate" groups? Christians, Mormons? Is Mr. Cathy giving to the KKK?

Imputations are best avoided (Mssr Reid: "He hasn't paid taxes in 10 years") and instead statements of fact should be made.

Esteban Cafe - surely you have lost your mind or at least your credibility. Now you are impugning the SPLC without any evidence and having demanded and received evidence from the side informed on the subject. Still your evidence is nothing more than your own voice and opinion without a scrap to back it up.

You dishonestly claim "science" is on your side when the evidence has been provided that shows science is not on your side. You claim you will change your mind when the data changes, the data has been clear for 20 years and has not changed its direction in your favor since that time.

But here you are with your hat in your hand trying to sell the world a conspiracy between the APA, the NAS, and the SPLC. Some of the most prestigious organizations in the country are colluding in a plot to unnecessarily defend homosexuals from an imaginary threat.

Sir, where to start? There is so much L-Nexus information undercutting and in direct refutation of your assertions that it's difficult to know where to begin in taking apart your citations and logic.

I'll excuse your ad hominen attacks and deal with the subject. Sir, complicity between gay-friendly organizations? I would never impugn their integrity, as did the gay California judge regarding his ruling in the much heralded "Proposition 8", oddly named as it is.

Science isn't "on my side" as you intone, but the side of truth. At the same time, what's left out is almost as importatnt as what's included, as this site will demonstrate.

That you clearly have an axe to grind on this topic relieves you of any objectivity. You will likely discount any source material that does not support your impassioned position. I'm sure this is obvous to you as it is to me. So be it.